What Is Americas Biggest Problem?

[waitforufo]

18 hours ago, Ten oz said:

What defines a "non-contributor"; is that anyone who doesn't pass your individual character test?  Everyone you don't see a measurable value for? 

In business, a non-contributor is someone who's efforts are not significant in meeting the the goals of a project.

A non contributor to society?  Well if your housing is subsidized by the public, you have an EBT card, your kids are on a free school meal program, you have an obama phone, your obamacare premiums are subsidized, and/or you receive earned income tax credits, and you do not pay taxes in excess of all of this public funding, then you are a non-contributor.    

19 hours ago, Ten oz said:

Individual success and cooperation in context of managing a government are complimentary ideas. Governments serve the many by design. There being no "I" in team doesn't prevent exceptional individual performance. Rather a stronger unified and empowered team produces more exceptional performances. I have yet to see a retired General or professional athletics manager complain their teams were too internally cooperative. 

In the military, recruits often wash out of boot camp.  In sports, players are often cut from the team roster.  There is a "I" in win and those of high accomplishment inspire those of lesser ability to strive harder.

Come on, this is not a difficult concept.  Have you never worked with low performers?  Do low performers inspire others to greater achievement, or do the co-workers of lower performers do less?  Well as a manager I can tell you that low performers  inspire their coworkers to do less.  Why should a good performer strive to achieve more, when a low performer achieves so little without consequence.  This is particularly true if the low performers compensation is equivalent to high performer.  That is why low performers are let go.  

Non contributors should be ashamed of themselves.  Contributors should feel free to shame them as well. 

[swansont]

25 minutes ago, waitforufo said:

A non contributor to society?  Well if your housing is subsidized by the public, you have an EBT card, your kids are on a free school meal program, you have an obama phone, your obamacare premiums are subsidized, and/or you receive earned income tax credits, and you do not pay taxes in excess of all of this public funding, then you are a non-contributor.    

What a loathsome point of view. By this reasoning a mother (or father) who stays at home and cares for their child(ren) is not a contributor to society if they have no income, they pay no tax, but have any sort of subsidy from the government.

 A military veteran, or law enforcement official who has to undergo expensive rehabilitation at taxpayer expense, or can't work anymore, is a non-contributor to society, because s/he costs more than s/he will pay in taxes.

25 minutes ago, waitforufo said:

In the military, recruits often wash out of boot camp.  In sports, players are often cut from the team roster.  There is a "I" in win and those of high accomplishment inspire those of lesser ability to strive harder.

Come on, this is not a difficult concept.  Have you never worked with low performers?  Do low performers inspire others to greater achievement, or do the co-workers of lower performers do less?  Well as a manager I can tell you that low performers  inspire their coworkers to do less.  Why should a good performer strive to achieve more, when a low performer achieves so little without consequence.  This is particularly true if the low performers compensation is equivalent to high performer.  That is why low performers are let go.  

Non contributors should be ashamed of themselves.  Contributors should feel free to shame them as well. 

Wow. Just wow.

As far as the question of the OP goes, this attitude gets my vote.

[CharonY]

36 minutes ago, waitforufo said:

In business, a non-contributor is someone who's efforts are not significant in meeting the the goals of a project.

Right, and those people may lose their jobs. A bit of an issue is when the project is mismanaged though. Often (though not always) management has a bit more leeway to shift blame than the actual worker.

38 minutes ago, waitforufo said:

A non contributor to society?  Well if your housing is subsidized by the public, you have an EBT card, your kids are on a free school meal program, you have an obama phone, your obamacare premiums are subsidized, and/or you receive earned income tax credits, and you do not pay taxes in excess of all of this public funding, then you are a non-contributor.    

So there is no difference to those that got into this situation but struggle to get out? And even if we ignore culpability, what is the bottom line? Are you alright with those underperformers dying from preventable diseases? Even from a selfish perspective this is a horrible idea as malnourished and sick people endanger public health. We could go further and just put people away that are unable or unwilling to succeed in modern society. But I hope I do not need to spell out why that is a horrible idea.

Up until much was (and actually still is) run on emergency measures (e.g. injured and sick do get treated in emergency rooms), but that is the worst of two worlds. A part of the population has worse health outcome (as they only go when it is too late for other measures) and it increases the cost for everyone else. 

Also what about workers that get injured? If they fall through the net they will never become contributors on their own. I know plenty of immigrants in Germany who worked themselves to the bone to achieve middle and upper middle class lifestyles for themselves and their families. However, quite a few injured themselves or got sick because they were massively overworked. Without access to affordable healthcare they would have lost their only ability to generate income.

Note that subsidies are not just blanket handouts for moochers. They serve an important societal benefit to a) ensure public health and safety b) reduce overall net cost of the health care system c) assist with transient benefits to allow people to lift themselves out of poverty. Statistics do show that by far most benefits are only transient and focusing on those few that may live off the system and ignoring the overall net benefit is just... bad policy based on emotion and ideology.

[Ten oz]

3 hours ago, waitforufo said:

 

In the military, recruits often wash out of boot camp.  In sports, players are often cut from the team roster.  There is a "I" in win and those of high accomplishment inspire those of lesser ability to strive harder.

Come on, this is not a difficult concept.  Have you never worked with low performers?  Do low performers inspire others to greater achievement, or do the co-workers of lower performers do less?  Well as a manager I can tell you that low performers  inspire their coworkers to do less.  Why should a good performer strive to achieve more, when a low performer achieves so little without consequence.  This is particularly true if the low performers compensation is equivalent to high performer.  That is why low performers are let go.  

Non contributors should be ashamed of themselves.  Contributors should feel free to shame them as well. 

Yes, the military discharges people and sports teams cut players but when it is time to fight or time to perform both only have to people they have. Regardless of the weaknesses of various team members the teams  don't forfeit. Rather they do all they can with what they have. No sports team I am aware of ever cut their way to a championship. Not only that but cutting players doesn't save a team money. Rather they still must spend to replace the cut member and if the goal is to improve typically they must spend more. Ditto the military. During times of war we see drafts and not massive rounds of members being discharged. 

 

Henry Ford didn't look at his laborers and think to himself they were non-contributors vs contributors. He envisioned a process that was streamline and enabled superior production. Same goes for many industries. McDonald's success is rooted in better organizing their process. Complaining about whom is lazy vs a superstar isn't a recipe for success. Companies that fail typically do so because there service becomes obsolete be changes in technology or environment. 

[MigL]

Some people see Government hand-outs and social assistance going to people that need help, and some see it as going to 'moochers'.

Our system doesn't differentiate, and sometimes, the availability of these programs turns people who simply need help, into moochers, who have no desire to better themselves.

Once upon a time welfare was seen as shameful, now you see kids going on welfare because their parents make them follow rules at home. Rules they don't have to follow when they live in assisted housing and drop out of school.

Is the system perfect ? Of course not.
But I'd hate to live in a country without it.

[rangerx]

4 hours ago, waitforufo said:

Non contributors should be ashamed of themselves.  Contributors should feel free to shame them as well. 

Yes, like corporate welfare for those who pay no taxes, get bailed out or move offshore. It's all those social welfare non contributors fault, right?

Letting social welfare recipients starve in the streets solves the whole problem, right?

What you suggest is how India runs. A socio-political caste system. That's the democracy your strive?

Edited September 28, 2017 by rangerx

[waitforufo]

7 hours ago, swansont said:

What a loathsome point of view. By this reasoning a mother (or father) who stays at home and cares for their child(ren) is not a contributor to society if they have no income, they pay no tax, but have any sort of subsidy from the government.

No I believe such people are raising the next generation of government dependency.  Girls that watch their parent or parents struggle to put food on the table and a roof over their head don't go looking for a baby daddy when they want to be come independent of their parent's government subsidy.  They look for a husband with a job.

7 hours ago, swansont said:

A military veteran, or law enforcement official who has to undergo expensive rehabilitation at taxpayer expense, or can't work anymore, is a non-contributor to society, because s/he costs more than s/he will pay in taxes.

People who sacrifice in the service of there country have made there contribution.  Why don't you get that?

7 hours ago, swansont said:

As far as the question of the OP goes, this attitude gets my vote.

 Thanks for your vote.

6 hours ago, CharonY said:

So there is no difference to those that got into this situation but struggle to get out?

Sure there is but the problem is that government subsidy is a trap.  The benefits of staying in are greater than the benefits of getting out.  Besides why be one of those suckers that do when you can simply get.  

6 hours ago, CharonY said:

Note that subsidies are not just blanket handouts for moochers. 

Not just?  Well at least you recognize that such subsidies include the attribute of being handouts to moochers.  

3 hours ago, MigL said:

Our system doesn't differentiate, and sometimes, the availability of these programs turns people who simply need help, into moochers, who have no desire to better themselves.

I appreciate the good intentions of those promoting government support.  Results however are more important than good intentions.  These programs corrupt people.  They rob them of the dignity of being a contributor to society.  It robs them of the ability to truthfully say "I did my part in making society a better place."  Instead it turns them into people without shame competing for every handout available.  Public housing, check.  EBT card, check. Obama phone, check.  Free school meal program, check.  Free obamacare, check.  Earned income credits, check.  My guess is I have only mentioned a few of the available hand outs.  

3 hours ago, MigL said:

Once upon a time welfare was seen as shameful, now you see kids going on welfare because their parents make them follow rules at home. Rules they don't have to follow when they live in assisted housing and drop out of school..

All they need is a baby daddy.

3 hours ago, MigL said:

Is the system perfect ? Of course not.
But I'd hate to live in a country without it.

There are alternatives.  We have tried those alternative and they did wonderful things.  The  politician that tried them was Franklin Delano Roosevelt.  They produced tremendous national infrastructure.  Hoover Dam, Grand Coulee Dam, the TVA, National park Improvements through the CCC and more.  People were paid to work and learn skills instead of sitting on their asses bitching about their need for more handouts.  People had to move and live in places like Bolder City, Electric City, but they worked, learned, and contributed.  Here is one of those towns my mother was raised in.  Portneuf Park in Pocatello Idaho which was built for railroad workers due to a housing shortage during WWII.

Doesn't look like much, but the people that lived their all had jobs and the dignity that comes with them.  

 

2 hours ago, rangerx said:

Yes, like corporate welfare for those who pay no taxes, get bailed out or move offshore. It's all those social welfare non contributors fault, right?

The government gets what it asks for when creating the tax code.

2 hours ago, rangerx said:

Letting social welfare recipients starve in the streets solves the whole problem, right?

I said they should be shamed not starved.  

2 hours ago, rangerx said:

What you suggest is how India runs. A socio-political caste system. That's the democracy your strive?

Government handouts are creating the socio-political caste system.  Those that do and those that don't.  The political class and the rest of us.  Take off your blinders.  

Edited September 28, 2017 by waitforufo

[iNow]

http://mashable.com/2015/07/27/welfare-myths-debunked/#IjbuRq9jDZq9

Quote

Welfare recipients are often characterized as lazy, simply waiting for the next month's benefits to roll in. But nearly 73% of people receiving public benefitsare members of working families.

Some programs, like TANF, actually operate under the expectation that families are working but need temporary assistance to become financially stable. Many argue the problem is really income inequality, which leaves minimum wage earners struggling to afford basic needs, and therefore reliant on public assistance.

Viewing people as morally responsible for their own situations "obviously ignores the systemic inequalities in the economy and polity that make people poor in the first place,"

(snip)

Eligibility requirements prevent government aid recipients from getting benefits if they don't demonstrate dire need. TANF programs, for example, have a federal lifetime limit of five years. 

"You might be on consecutively for five years and fall off," Mink says, "but if you fall into dire straits five years from now, forget it. You can't get back into the program."

As a result, these requirements often prevent some people from accessing the support they need. For instance, the federal government's food stamp cutsenacted at the end of 2014, which included tighter eligibility restrictions, had experts predicting severe hardships for the nation's poorest by 2016.

Welfare offers basic support to provide families with the bare necessities, if even that. Many families on welfare are simply looking to use government assistance as a way to build up their finances during tough times, with the goal of getting back on their feet.

"Nobody wants to stay on welfare if they can get a decent job with decent wages with decent working conditions," Mink says.

 

[rangerx]

16 minutes ago, waitforufo said:

Government handouts are creating the socio-political caste system.  Those that do and those that don't.  The political class and the rest of us.  Take off your blinders.  

You're the one in blinders thinking the social welfare system is the root of all America's economic, cultural and social ills.

As a conservative, you expect (demand even) tax breaks or unregulated movement of cash to offshore shelters, unfettered access to public lands and resources, massive buyouts, hostile takeovers, multi-million dollar bonuses and and golden parachutes, even in the case of massive failures or corruption. The great lie that tax relief to the poor downtrodden corporate America, that has not, can not, and never will do anything wrong. That's what broke America's back, but those blinders seem to fit you comfortably and conveniently.

Conservatives, namely Republicans are the biggest leeches on the American economy and historically ran the highest debts. Milking dollars then distracting from the issue by blaming others for receiving pennies.

The Jones Act revealed it's ugly head in Puerto Rico. American protectionism cast upon it's own people to the tune of 40% surcharges on domestic goods, even during a state of emergency.
 

Shameful.
 

[iNow]

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/21/business/the-myth-of-welfares-corrupting-influence-on-the-poor.html

Quote

Does welfare corrupt the poor?

Few ideas are so deeply ingrained in the American popular imagination as the belief that government aid for poor people will just encourage bad behavior.

(snip)

And yet, to a significant degree, it is wrong. Actual experience, from the richest country in the world to some of the poorest places on the planet, suggests that cash assistance can be of enormous help for the poor. And freeing them from what President Ronald Reagan memorably termed the “spider’s web of dependency” — also known as forcing the poor to swim or sink — is not the cure-all for social ills its supporters claim.

 

[rangerx]

Kick people off the dole, crime goes up, followed by more injuries (and death), property damage, rising insurance costs, cluttered courts and packed prisons. Emergency room costs go up.

Republicans sure like to bite off their noses to spite their faces. They even seem content to condemn their own kind to second class citizenship because of preexisting conditions for profit.

 

[Sicarii]

@waitforufo

There is a clear-cut contradiction in your stance with respect to "government handouts" or social welfare in general. For example, you oppose universal health care which is subsidized by taxpayers, yet at the same time oppose "government handouts". However, people who cannot afford health care and go into medical debt (which constitutes the #1 reason for personal bankruptcies in the US) are more prone to need "government handouts" in order to survive. If a universal health care system was implemented, they wouldn't go into crippling debt and they wouldn't need "government handouts". I put this contradiction and inconsistency from conservatives on par with their "pro-life" platform where they oppose legal, safe abortion procedures while opposing comprehensive sexual education, free contraceptives, and better family planning services. You probably also oppose universal education which provides higher education to people regardless of their income level. People who attend college are less likely to need welfare.

Furthermore, you incorrectly categorize the population that receives welfare or "government handouts". You wrote "A non contributor to society?  Well if your housing is subsidized by the public, you have an EBT card, your kids are on a free school meal program, you have an obama phone, your obamacare premiums are subsidized, and/or you receive earned income tax credits, and you do not pay taxes in excess of all of this public funding, then you are a non-contributor." But that's not exactly very accurate. What's the percentage of welfare recipients who receive all of these benefits? Your entire discourse regarding this subject seems to be based on stereotypes of welfare recipients as opposed to the facts. For example, 90+% of welfare recipients are either elderly, disabled, or working household (53%, 20%, 18%, respectively) (Source: https://www.cbpp.org/research/contrary-to-entitlement-society-rhetoric-over-nine-tenths-of-entitlement-benefits-go-to). The same report also found that middle class people receive a proportionate share of welfare benefits, and that wealthy households (top 20%) receive a much larger share of tax expenditures than their poor or middle class counterparts (contrary of the usual rhetoric by conservatives that the government is taking from the middle class and rich in order to give to the poor).

1 hour ago, waitforufo said:

There are alternatives.  We have tried those alternative and they did wonderful things.  The  politician that tried them was Franklin Delano Roosevelt.  They produced tremendous national infrastructure.  Hoover Dam, Grand Coulee Dam, the TVA, National park Improvements through the CCC and more.  People were paid to work and learn skills instead of sitting on their asses bitching about their need for more handouts.  People had to move and live in places like Bolder City, Electric City, but they worked, learned, and contributed.  Here is one of those towns my mother was raised in.  Portneuf Park in Pocatello Idaho which was built for railroad workers due to a housing shortage during WWII.

Funny you should cite FDR, knowing modern conservatives absolutely despise (at least most of) the programs he created as part of the New Deal.

Not to mention that you can't really compare current status of US economy versus its status at the height of the Great Depression. The problems are not the same so the solutions cannot be the same.

[beecee]

45 minutes ago, Sicarii said:

@waitforufo

There is a clear-cut contradiction in your stance with respect to "government handouts" or social welfare in general. For example, you oppose universal health care which is subsidized by taxpayers, yet at the same time oppose "government handouts". However, people who cannot afford health care and go into medical debt (which constitutes the #1 reason for personal bankruptcies in the US) are more prone to need "government handouts" in order to survive. If a universal health care system was implemented, they wouldn't go into crippling debt and they wouldn't need "government handouts". I put this contradiction and inconsistency from conservatives on par with their "pro-life" platform where they oppose legal, safe abortion procedures while opposing comprehensive sexual education, free contraceptives, and better family planning services. You probably also oppose universal education which provides higher education to people regardless of their income level. People who attend college are less likely to need welfare.

Furthermore, you incorrectly categorize the population that receives welfare or "government handouts". You wrote "A non contributor to society?  Well if your housing is subsidized by the public, you have an EBT card, your kids are on a free school meal program, you have an obama phone, your obamacare premiums are subsidized, and/or you receive earned income tax credits, and you do not pay taxes in excess of all of this public funding, then you are a non-contributor." But that's not exactly very accurate. What's the percentage of welfare recipients who receive all of these benefits? Your entire discourse regarding this subject seems to be based on stereotypes of welfare recipients as opposed to the facts. For example, 90+% of welfare recipients are either elderly, disabled, or working household (53%, 20%, 18%, respectively) (Source: https://www.cbpp.org/research/contrary-to-entitlement-society-rhetoric-over-nine-tenths-of-entitlement-benefits-go-to). The same report also found that middle class people receive a proportionate share of welfare benefits, and that wealthy households (top 20%) receive a much larger share of tax expenditures than their poor or middle class counterparts (contrary of the usual rhetoric by conservatives that the government is taking from the middle class and rich in order to give to the poor).

Funny you should cite FDR, knowing modern conservatives absolutely despise (at least most of) the programs he created as part of the New Deal.

Not to mention that you can't really compare current status of US economy versus its status at the height of the Great Depression. The problems are not the same so the solutions cannot be the same.

Nice post. As an outsider, I see an attitude that we in Australia call, the  "F%$#  you,  I'm alright Jack" attitude. 

[swansont]

11 hours ago, waitforufo said:

No I believe such people are raising the next generation of government dependency.  Girls that watch their parent or parents struggle to put food on the table and a roof over their head don't go looking for a baby daddy when they want to be come independent of their parent's government subsidy.  They look for a husband with a job.

That's not at all sexist, is it?

11 hours ago, waitforufo said:

People who sacrifice in the service of there country have made there contribution.  Why don't you get that?

I do get that. Why would you think I don't?

But that's not what you had stated. Your stated position only relies on a net tax payment. But if there are other ways to contribute, then isn't it possible that someone who e.g. gets a subsidy on their health insurance could be a contributor to society, in contradiction to your post?

11 hours ago, waitforufo said:

 Sure there is but the problem is that government subsidy is a trap.  The benefits of staying in are greater than the benefits of getting out.  Besides why be one of those suckers that do when you can simply get.  

That's the myth. I've known people who got government subsidies. They got out, and the benefits of getting out are much greater.  

11 hours ago, waitforufo said:

Not just?  Well at least you recognize that such subsidies include the attribute of being handouts to moochers.  

I appreciate the good intentions of those promoting government support.  Results however are more important than good intentions.  These programs corrupt people.  They rob them of the dignity of being a contributor to society.  It robs them of the ability to truthfully say "I did my part in making society a better place."  Instead it turns them into people without shame competing for every handout available.  Public housing, check.  EBT card, check. Obama phone, check.  Free school meal program, check.  Free obamacare, check.  Earned income credits, check.  My guess is I have only mentioned a few of the available hand outs.  

Lots. All the tax breaks for the wealthy, for example.

11 hours ago, waitforufo said:

The government gets what it asks for when creating the tax code.

So for poor people it's "moochers" but for corporations (or the wealthy) it's "hey, that's the tax code"?